AuthorTopic: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?  (Read 16229 times)

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #75 on: June 17, 2015, 01:04:40 PM »
By the way: EDDIE, if you are listening: I promised that I would answer your question, far far up in the China toast thread, about solar pv. You were concerned about EROI, silver, and one other thing which slips my mind. Most of what I wanted to say about EROI of solar pv is here (just a few posts up from this):
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4680.msg78359.html#msg78359

There's a few other things I could post, but that's pretty good. EROI is not an issue for solar pv, if it ever was. There is actually concern, as I think I mentioned on the china thread, about solar's EROI and payback times being TOO GOOD. The issue is that with cheap, high-EROI solar power, we can bring forth a shit-ton MORE FFs than would have been retrievable otherwise -- with the CO2/AGW implications of that. We NEED to run out of the damned FFs before we ruin the freaking planet! In this sense it is too bad that peak oil has turned out to be such a bust, at least so far. Declining FF production would be very good news on several fronts -- climate, but also it would speed the transition to renewables, as we desperately need to do.

Anyway, moving along: silver.  Silver is not a problem. Silver for solar PV currently eats about 5% of annual silver production. Eventually, at much higher levels of PV manufacture, silver might become an issue. But by then, the silver price would have risen to multiples of its current (very low) level, and that acts as incentive to find substitutes. There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Hope that answers your concerns.

PS re silver: a further thought: remember that pv panels, once installed, are likely to have a service life in excess of a half-century; i.e. do not have to be replaced any time soon, and even when they are replaced, materials such as silver can be recycled. In other words, silver requirement for pvs, even assuming that NOTHING could replace silver (which is false), is more or less a one-off thing: once we produce all the panels we need, then only a small trickle of new production will be needed after that (and hence only a small trickle of silver needed).

Exploration:  amount of silver needed to produce enough pvs to produce all 15 terawatts of global electricity demand:
about 2,500 ounces of Ag needed per solar pv megawatt (several sources)
= about 2.5 million ounces of Ag per gigawatt
= about 2.5 billion ounces of Ag per terawatt
annual silver production: a little under a billion ounces
hence, 2.5 years of total production per terawatt, or 37 years for all 15 terawatts
(that's using ALL available silver!)
Hmmm.  I think we need those substitutes!
More realistically: a 50-year transition, with solar pv eventually producing, say, 25-30% of total electricity, is reasonable and possible even without silver substitution. But there WILL be substitution, so not to worry.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 01:22:53 PM by alan2102 »

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #76 on: June 18, 2015, 12:24:32 AM »
Quote
Alan: You're wrong, regarding solar. You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI -- Bhandari et al's meta-analysis published last year.

An analysis is only as good as its chosen system boundaries, and it at least says what those boundaries are:
Quote
A PV system consists of the PV module and the balance of system (BOS) components. The module encompasses the surface that harnesses the solar energy. The BOS components encompass all other supporting infrastructure and can include the wiring, switches (for connecting to the existing electric grid), support racks, and inverter (to convert direct current to alternating current). The life cycle stages of a PV system include raw material acquisition and processing, manufacturing of the module, operation, and end of life management.

But in the real world it consists of a lot more than that.  You need a carefully air-conditioned factory for one thing, and bulldozers to dig up the raw materials, and trucks and ships to transport them, and that traffic's share of the energy cost of the roads/ports.  Then the finished product has to be packaged, and warehoused, and transported, and warehoused, and wholesaled, and retailed, and delivered to the site, and installed by qualified electricians, working on roof-tops in safety gear, and all the sales staff and advertising and accountants and computers. 

If it is a solar farm, you need a much more complicated and heavier wiring system, with many more junction boxes, and sophisticated inverters, the mountings have to be embedded in the ground in concrete, and the whole thing has to be fenced and monitored against theft, and careful metering of the exported power onto the grid, and invoicing to the electricity marketers.  The workers have to have transport to get to work, food needs to be available one way or another, there needs to be overalls provided, and workers' wages and health insurance and pension funds to be paid, and people to do that and their computers and transport.

So while the report is honest about what is included within the system boundaries, and is thus not "wrong", it is not valid in the real world.  Moreover, it isn't possible to give sensible figures on the energy cost of raw materials and fuels spanning the purported lifetime of a panel - 30 years, because the embedded energy costs are going up all the time as resources become scarer.

So don't give me that crap about "You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI ..." when you obviously can't spot an accounting scam when it is staring you in the face.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #77 on: June 18, 2015, 04:58:05 AM »
Hi, Palloy.

1. The same things apply to all energy sources; i.e. you can come up with a long (even endless) list of inputs. Past a point, it becomes ridiculous. But the people who do these analyses are generally intelligent enough not to push it to the point of ridiculousness.

2. Most of the things you mention were accounted for. I think you should read carefully the very passage that you quoted; to wit:

Quote
A PV system consists of the PV module and the balance of system (BOS) components. The module encompasses the surface that harnesses the solar energy. The BOS components encompass all other supporting infrastructure and can include the wiring, switches (for connecting to the existing electric grid), support racks, and inverter (to convert direct current to alternating current). The life cycle stages of a PV system include raw material acquisition and processing, manufacturing of the module, operation, and end of life management.

... i.e. most of the things you mention -- within reason -- have been accounted for.

It is always possible to extend the list of inputs, but the energetic cost of them becomes trivial against the energetic return over a ~50-year service life of solar pv. Most of them become trivial even amortized over 5 years, let alone 50. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to build a pv factory. But then the pv factory makes  millions of pvs which then generate many thousands of times more energy than was initially required. Same thing with, say, an oil platform: huge initial investment, but pays off for many decades, the payoff being far more than the initial investment.

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #78 on: June 18, 2015, 05:23:11 AM »
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

I have it recorded on the server.  The invitation was made over a week ago, and your IP addy shows up 3 times after that.

RE

There's something wrong with your server's recording mechanism. I've had a couple of DD tabs open in my browser over the last month (amongst 90 other tabs), and I've rebooted my machine  (and re-opened my browser session) once or twice a day for the entire time -- each time would be a call to your server, I believe. So my IP should've shown up maybe 50 times, not just 3.

In any case, I did not pay any attention to DD for a week or so. I was busy with other things.

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #79 on: June 18, 2015, 06:26:57 AM »
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver, and a great many other things, and I have no more interest in feeding your trolling habit, but since you've addressed me directly, I'll respond this once, and no more.

Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit. Gold is a great substitute though. Since it's a barbarous relic, maybe the price will drop to 10 bucks an oz and then....NO PROBLEM.

Peak copper is almost here too, btw. And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.

But all those pesky facts aside, I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.



« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 06:31:26 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #80 on: June 18, 2015, 07:11:03 AM »
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver, and a great many other things, and I have no more interest in feeding your trolling habit, but since you've addressed me directly, I'll respond this once, and no more.

Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit. Gold is a great substitute though. Since it's a barbarous relic, maybe the price will drop to 10 bucks an oz and then....NO PROBLEM.

Peak copper is almost here too, btw. And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.

But all those pesky facts aside, I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.


Something else to think about Al.....
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
Aluminum could be used in place of copper wire, but at a cost
of fire damage to the units it's used in !
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #81 on: June 18, 2015, 08:24:27 AM »
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver
You're welcome to mention specifically what I am wrong about.

Quote
Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit.
No, it actually does substitute:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/print/volume-15/issue-3/solar-tech/pv-technology-swapping-silver-for-copper.html
 -- though there are technical difficulties that need to be ironed out (proper insulation and other stuff). Again, the incentive to work out the difficulties is just not there yet. It will be, in a few years.

Quote
Peak copper is almost here too, btw.
Regardless, the amounts used for pvs would be so small, in the big scheme (gigatons of copper produced per year), that it would be essentially limitless.

Quote
And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peak_copper -- "Unlike fossil fuels, however, copper is scrapped and reused and it has been estimated that at least 80% of all copper ever mined is still available (having been repeatedly recycled)."

Quote
But all those pesky facts aside
Not pesky at all. Easily dealt with.

Quote
I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.
I don't?! Why do you say that?  We've never discussed energy conservation and the general issue of overconsumption -- which I think is far more important than overpopulation. I think less energy-intensive lifestyle is a great idea. I live one myself.  I spent many, many hours arguing against overconsumption (as the KEY to our environmental problems) over on the hubbertsarms forum, years ago. Reducing consumption, and conserving, are much more potent and essential to resolve our problems than any new energy tech. Conservation a la Lovins, and Factor 5.

If you want to know my opinion about something, just ask. You might be surprised.

As I pointed out, one of the cited problems with cheap renewables is that they will allow accelerated retrieval of otherwise unavailable FFs -- and I AGREE that this is a problem. I don't like it. I don't advocate it. But there it is, and it is not sufficient reason to refrain from building out renewables.

PS: there's also overlap between conservation and renewables. As you probably know, electrification of transport will drastically reduce the energy requirement of said transport, since ~65% of FF energy is released as waste heat with ICEs. So the renewables build-out will save huge amounts of energy in that sector, which is great.

I for one would love it if society would abandon the automobile completely, which I've always thought was a shitty technology. Doing that would save 100% of the energy now being pissed-away in that sector, in addition to having numerous social and environmental benefits. But society has other ideas, and is not listening to me.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 08:46:16 AM by alan2102 »

Offline alan2102

  • Contrarian
  • Waitstaff
  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #82 on: June 18, 2015, 08:56:50 AM »
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
No, but we can conserve and recycle our way out.

Also, cheap renewables will allow lower-grade ores to serve as sources, i.e. effectively increase supply of most stuff.

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/

I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42050
    • View Profile
http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/

FRANCE....ROTHSCHILD BANKSTERS....COLLAPSE....

What does this remind me of...  :icon_scratch:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lo5BBHtn4tM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/lo5BBHtn4tM</a>

THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #85 on: July 03, 2015, 08:27:57 PM »
How apropos.....
Nice job RE  :icon_sunny:
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42050
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #86 on: July 03, 2015, 11:49:48 PM »
How apropos.....
Nice job RE  :icon_sunny:

One of my favorite vids. I have used it MANY Times.  ;D

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #87 on: July 04, 2015, 05:11:57 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/h3z0rDeltoQ&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/h3z0rDeltoQ&fs=1</a>
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #88 on: July 04, 2015, 08:11:18 PM »
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver
You're welcome to mention specifically what I am wrong about.

That isn't the way these locals play the game Alan. And your implication of even attempting to bring basic economic concepts into the argument will be met only with resistance because, obviously, that is exactly the heart of the question. And if you aren't claiming scarcity here, now, everywhere, you just can't be right, even if you are. Just the way the game is played here, is all.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
« Reply #89 on: July 05, 2015, 02:38:39 PM »
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
No, but we can conserve and recycle our way out.

Also, cheap renewables will allow lower-grade ores to serve as sources, i.e. effectively increase supply of most stuff.


Al,
Either way "It's a FLUSTER-CuCK" anyway you slice it.
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why youíre here. Youíre here because you know something. What you know you canít explain, but you feel it. Youíve felt it your entire life, that thereís something wrong with the world.
You donít know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
90 Replies
17130 Views
Last post March 06, 2014, 06:55:01 PM
by Surly1
Degrowth? (post growth, end of growth... economics)

Started by JRM - James R. Martin « 1 2 3 » Energy

42 Replies
9771 Views
Last post January 07, 2014, 07:29:44 AM
by g
0 Replies
367 Views
Last post March 04, 2016, 10:03:15 AM
by Eddie